Committee for Finance and Personnel

Committee for Finance and Personnel OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard) Sale of National Asset Management Agency Assets in Northern Ireland: Mr Sammy Wilson MP 3 December 2015 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Committee for Finance and Personnel Sale of National Asset Management Agency Assets in Northern Ireland: Mr Sammy Wilson MP 3 December 2015 Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Daithí McKay (Chairperson) Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Leslie Cree Mr Gordon Lyons Mr John McCallister Mr Ian McCrea Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir Mr Jim Wells Witnesses: Mr Sammy Wilson Northern Ireland Assembly The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Good afternoon, Mr Wilson. Mr Sammy Wilson (Northern Ireland Assembly): Good afternoon. Mr Ó Muilleoir: You look very wet. Mr Wilson: It is wet, yes. The Chairperson (Mr McKay): You have had a busy couple of days. Mr Wilson: I have had a busy couple of days, yes. I have been arranging to sort out the Middle East. The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Sammy, do you want to make some opening comments before we go to questions? Mr Wilson: I do, yes, please. First, on the subject of the inquiry itself, I suppose, I was Minister at the time when the whole idea about the sale of the National Asset Management Agency's (NAMA) assets kicked off. I am sure that, during the questions, we can explain some of the background to that, but, at that stage, the property market in Northern Ireland was in very poor condition. Not only had we all the bad loans that had been taken into NAMA but we had the equivalent amount in the Ulster Bank. The uncertainty that that created in the property market was very grave for the construction industry. Indeed, had it not been for the Assembly, the construction industry probably would have been in a far worse condition because over 50% of the people employed in the construction industry at that stage relied upon public-sector expenditure. That was up from about 30% at the height of the boom. 1 Because of the way in which NAMA and the Ulster Bank were dealing with issues, you were not going to get the certainty. So, although I did not see the end product, overall I believe that what we got from NAMA, contrary to the views that have been expressed by some members of this Committee, was actually a very good deal. It was a good deal for the construction industry on the ground here in Northern Ireland, and I can see evidence of that in my constituency. I will maybe give examples of that later on when it comes to questioning. Of course, it has led to developments that would not otherwise have taken place. That is the first thing that I want to say, and, of course, the Assembly has been fairly good at finding gold and turning it into muck. I think that that is what has happened to a certain extent with the way in which the Committee has handled some of the subsequent events. The second thing that I want to say is that I had a role in appointing just one of the members who went on to the NAMA advisory committee. Indeed, I think that it was probably at my instigation that the Government in the Republic agreed to set up the advisory committee, which was of great benefit to Northern Ireland and ensured that there was a Northern Ireland voice on a Southern body that potentially could have damaged the Northern Ireland economy. I think that, at the end of the day, we finished up with very good relationships with NAMA. Indeed, on a number of occasions in the Assembly, even though Sinn Féin was opposed to NAMA and tried to criticise it a number of times in the Assembly, I did praise NAMA for some of the initiatives that it took and the sensitive way in which it handled some issues here in Northern Ireland. I think that the representative that we had — certainly the representative that I recommended for appointment to NAMA — did a sterling job on our behalf. The third thing that I want to say is on the nature of this inquiry. Mr Chairman, this is directed at you. I have known you for some time, including from when I was the Finance Minister, and I do think that a kind of incompetence and bias has been shown by this Committee in some of the way that it has dealt with the inquiry. Allegations have been taken with no fact and no substance to them from people who became useful idiots, quite frankly, of this Committee. It would not be allowed in any other administrative body anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that there is an important job that the Committee should have been doing all along, and that is separating out fiction and prejudice from actual facts, which is what the Committee should really be trying to deal with. In August, I said that I was quite happy to come along to give evidence to the Committee. Had I known subsequently the way in which this Committee was going and had I not made the promise, I doubt very much whether I would have come along to grace with credibility the kind of Mickey Mouse exercise that has been undertaken. However, I made a promise in August, and the reason why it has taken until now for me to come along is your tardiness and your unwillingness to let me get the assurances that the Committee would not stray beyond its remit or put me in a difficult position where, if there is subsequently some requirement for me to speak to the National Crime Agency (NCA), I would not be compromised in any way. Anyhow, I am here, and I am prepared to answer questions. I will do so to the best of my ability. The last thing that I want to say is that, with much of what happened around the time, as I said, I did not see the process to the point where there was a sale proposed of the NAMA assets, so I encouraged the Government of the Irish Republic, with certain conditions attached, to look at the sale of the assets. Whilst I did not see it through, a lot of the recollection that I have of the meetings, a lot of which were not formal meetings or anything else, will probably be fairly hazy, but I will try to do my best to give you my recollection of the events that I was involved in. That is all that I wanted to say as an opening statement. The Chairperson (Mr McKay): Thank you, Mr Wilson. I would defend the Committee's work to date. We have uncovered a great deal of evidence that has been useful to NAMA itself in terms of instances and meetings that it was not aware of. I am going to be fair, in that I will treat you as I would any other witness and will give you the space to respond to any queries. You spoke about when you first came into post and the work that you did in the early stages. I certainly recognise that the Executive, and you as Minister, were proactive. It was right to seek Northern representation and to protect the interests of businesses and those affected by the Project Eagle portfolio in the North. You are right, as well, that your period of tenure, when it comes to this issue, only goes up to about the summer of 2013. The appointment that you proposed for the NAMA advisory committee is an issue that has been gone over to some degree. I am not going to labour the point, but I want to clarify some of the things that have been said. You made three nominations to the advisory committee, and you have said that Mr Cushnahan did a good job in his role on the advisory committee in representing the interests of the North. Did you apply any criteria to the way in which you shortlisted those three names? How did you come to the conclusion that those three were the best possible candidates? 2 Mr Wilson: First, in the discussions that I had with the late Brian Lenihan, who was very helpful on this issue, I had asked initially that we should appoint a member to the board. It was well past the stage of getting a member appointed to the board, and he explained to me that, in terms of the legislation and the way in which NAMA had been established, that could not be done. However, he recognised that there were issues that I had raised about fears that we had in Northern Ireland and also about how NAMA might be perceived if it did not deal with some of the fears that I had expressed, namely that here was a body based in the Irish Republic that had a substantial portfolio in Northern Ireland and did not have any Northern Ireland input at all. If damage happened to the Northern Ireland economy, NAMA was in the spotlight. He recognised that there was a need to have some Northern Ireland input. The terms were very clear, though, that anyone who was on that committee would not have any input into the decisions that NAMA would make about individual portfolios here — NAMA has confirmed that to you anyway — in Northern Ireland — I will tell you a story about that in a moment or two — and their role would simply be to advise on the economic background.

Load more